4 ms·

Stephen Hawking made a great point last year when he wrote that automation/robots aren't the problem, capitalism is the problem. Most of the world takes for gr

Stephen Hawking made a great point last year when he wrote that automation/robots aren't the problem, capitalism is the problem. Most of the world takes for granted a system that allocates resources and the results of production in a way that encourages the highest profits with the least costs. Since humans are the highest cost, they are the biggest target for automation. We have a golden opportunity to create a better, more equitable way of living now and in the future. Let's not let this moment go to waste. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5616c20ce4b0dbb8000d9f15 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5616c20ce4b0dbb8000d9f15

mvitorino 10y ago
95% of people used to work in agriculture and now less than 5% do in most modern countries and also, as a result, there is a lot more food to go around. Automation has been around for a while now. It's not a new problem and hasn't caused society to collapse yet. As to alternatives to Capitalism, Communism was one that promised a more "equitable" way of living...
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  It's more inefficient than Capitalism, which is its Achilles heel. Socialism works when there is 'free' production to fuel it. Like in the Netherlands. It fails when the money stops pumping in, like Venezuela. Automation may provide the free input that makes a more humane (more Socialist) system work for everybody?
  - mvitorino 10y ago
    There is no such thing as free production because resources are not unlimited.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Oil out of the ground is the nearest thing then. Once its automated, it has negligible marginal human cost. Or, did that mean something about 'poor planet we're exhausting its resources'? Then never mind.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      There is such a thing as production decoupled from labor. We still need a way to allocate the limited resources, but the primary way to do can't be labor/salaries anymore - because in the near future, unlike all the past millenia, labor of most people is simply not needed for optimum production.
      - mvitorino 10y ago
        I can't think of a single industry that has been able to completely decouple production from labor. Even something as simple as subway ticketing machines or vending machines require technicians to deploy and maintain them. Sure, most people that sold tickets lost that job, but economies have always found a new occupation for most. Seems to me most have exaggerated expectations of the impact of automation.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        No, most have underestimated the effect. A factory that used to have hundreds of workers and a few engineers and technicians, now has just a few engineers and technicians. That's effectively a decoupling of production from labor, however you want to look at it. Automation of production has been explosive in the last few years. Companies that automate factories have a critical shortage of practical Engineers (no don't get excited; its one automation Engineer for every million people out of work). Automation Engineering requires a working knowledge of mechanical, electrical, chemical and information systems. My Niece flies all around the world installing and controlling automation, and her company cannot find qualified candidates to fill the demand.
        mvitorino 10y ago
        My parents used to own a textile factory that employed at one point over 100 people. The business stopped being competitive and eventually was closed down with production moving to places like Eastern Europe, India and China. So I think a lot of those production jobs have already been destroyed in Europe and North America. Automation is an opportunity for manufacturing to move back closer to the creative and consumer ends of the businesses. I get your point and I do agree that if a revolution like automation happens too fast, there is potential for social shocks such as high levels of unemployment and worse. But, as you state, the decoupling of the production from labor is actually being naturally throttled down by a scarcity of... labour. And that may buy enough time for society to adjust since education and training are taking longer and longer these days and no shortcut has been created for human learning.
    - nationcrafting 10y ago
      Are you saying resources get hurled into space when we use them? Also, value can increase in a finite resources environment. For example, my iphone is worth a lot more, and is a lot more useful, than the materials it's made of.
- majewsky 10y ago
  Ah, the old fallacy that absence of capitalism equals communism. Yet humankind existed for millenia before either system was introduced.
  - mvitorino 10y ago
    That is not what I said. I merely mentioned that one of the possible alternatives was Communism. I do not know any alternatives that have worked and instead of pointing out a non existing fallacy, I would expect someone to actually point to viable alternative to Capitalism instead of simply being critics of it. Also Capitalism is as old as the notion of personal property which predates any notion of State.
    - phaemon 10y ago
      It is not. Barter is not capitalism. Cottage industry is not capitalism. Google 'history of capitalism' and you'll see.
jayjay71 10y ago
How do you think the new governments will unfold? Will there be gradual changes in multiple countries around the world, or will there be violent uprisings? Historically speaking, at least in the United States, the citizens are far less powerful than the state simply due to the imbalance in weapons. The point of the 2nd amendment was so the people would be more powerful than the government, but due to the ban on machine guns and numerous other restrictions, I don't think anybody would argue the masses have nearly as much firepower as the military/police. Exciting times ahead? I have to agree it feels like a change is coming, mostly due to the rapidly growing number of humans and dwindling of limited resources combined with growing inequality, but it's hard to predict what will happen (if anything) and when. You think we'll see anything resembling a post-capitalist society in our lifetimes?
- aluhut 10y ago
  If the last decades have shown something, then that firepower is not really relevant for resistance. I think a corporate government model may jump in if the anti-terror infrastructure can't handle it at some point.
- douche 10y ago
  In the event of a popular uprising, the semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by many of the public would actually be more effective against police/military units and their body armor than many military rounds. .30-06 has more power behind it and leaves a bigger hole than 5.56 NATO.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    True, but rate-of-fire is often the more important feature of a weapon.
    - dbcurtis 10y ago
      May all your enemies be on full auto. The AK-47 and AR-15/M-16 are products of the doctrine of area fire. The M1 Garrand is a product of the doctrine of aimed fire. WW II was aimed fire. Aimed fire sucked in the jungle wars with fewer open field battles. Hunting rifles are good for a sniper-based, aimed-fire guerilla action. A battle between farm boys and Marines will be asymetric.

mvitorino 10y ago

95% of people used to work in agriculture and now less than 5% do in most modern countries and also, as a result, there is a lot more food to go around. Automation has been around for a while now. It's not a new problem and hasn't caused society to collapse yet. As to alternatives to Capitalism, Communism was one that promised a more "equitable" way of living...

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
It's more inefficient than Capitalism, which is its Achilles heel. Socialism works when there is 'free' production to fuel it. Like in the Netherlands. It fails when the money stops pumping in, like Venezuela. Automation may provide the free input that makes a more humane (more Socialist) system work for everybody?
- mvitorino 10y ago
  There is no such thing as free production because resources are not unlimited.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Oil out of the ground is the nearest thing then. Once its automated, it has negligible marginal human cost. Or, did that mean something about 'poor planet we're exhausting its resources'? Then never mind.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    There is such a thing as production decoupled from labor. We still need a way to allocate the limited resources, but the primary way to do can't be labor/salaries anymore - because in the near future, unlike all the past millenia, labor of most people is simply not needed for optimum production.
    - mvitorino 10y ago
      I can't think of a single industry that has been able to completely decouple production from labor. Even something as simple as subway ticketing machines or vending machines require technicians to deploy and maintain them. Sure, most people that sold tickets lost that job, but economies have always found a new occupation for most. Seems to me most have exaggerated expectations of the impact of automation.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        No, most have underestimated the effect. A factory that used to have hundreds of workers and a few engineers and technicians, now has just a few engineers and technicians. That's effectively a decoupling of production from labor, however you want to look at it. Automation of production has been explosive in the last few years. Companies that automate factories have a critical shortage of practical Engineers (no don't get excited; its one automation Engineer for every million people out of work). Automation Engineering requires a working knowledge of mechanical, electrical, chemical and information systems. My Niece flies all around the world installing and controlling automation, and her company cannot find qualified candidates to fill the demand.
        mvitorino 10y ago
        My parents used to own a textile factory that employed at one point over 100 people. The business stopped being competitive and eventually was closed down with production moving to places like Eastern Europe, India and China. So I think a lot of those production jobs have already been destroyed in Europe and North America. Automation is an opportunity for manufacturing to move back closer to the creative and consumer ends of the businesses. I get your point and I do agree that if a revolution like automation happens too fast, there is potential for social shocks such as high levels of unemployment and worse. But, as you state, the decoupling of the production from labor is actually being naturally throttled down by a scarcity of... labour. And that may buy enough time for society to adjust since education and training are taking longer and longer these days and no shortcut has been created for human learning.
  - nationcrafting 10y ago
    Are you saying resources get hurled into space when we use them? Also, value can increase in a finite resources environment. For example, my iphone is worth a lot more, and is a lot more useful, than the materials it's made of.
majewsky 10y ago
Ah, the old fallacy that absence of capitalism equals communism. Yet humankind existed for millenia before either system was introduced.
- mvitorino 10y ago
  That is not what I said. I merely mentioned that one of the possible alternatives was Communism. I do not know any alternatives that have worked and instead of pointing out a non existing fallacy, I would expect someone to actually point to viable alternative to Capitalism instead of simply being critics of it. Also Capitalism is as old as the notion of personal property which predates any notion of State.
  - phaemon 10y ago
    It is not. Barter is not capitalism. Cottage industry is not capitalism. Google 'history of capitalism' and you'll see.

jayjay71 10y ago

How do you think the new governments will unfold? Will there be gradual changes in multiple countries around the world, or will there be violent uprisings? Historically speaking, at least in the United States, the citizens are far less powerful than the state simply due to the imbalance in weapons. The point of the 2nd amendment was so the people would be more powerful than the government, but due to the ban on machine guns and numerous other restrictions, I don't think anybody would argue the masses have nearly as much firepower as the military/police. Exciting times ahead? I have to agree it feels like a change is coming, mostly due to the rapidly growing number of humans and dwindling of limited resources combined with growing inequality, but it's hard to predict what will happen (if anything) and when. You think we'll see anything resembling a post-capitalist society in our lifetimes?

aluhut 10y ago
If the last decades have shown something, then that firepower is not really relevant for resistance. I think a corporate government model may jump in if the anti-terror infrastructure can't handle it at some point.
douche 10y ago
In the event of a popular uprising, the semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by many of the public would actually be more effective against police/military units and their body armor than many military rounds. .30-06 has more power behind it and leaves a bigger hole than 5.56 NATO.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  True, but rate-of-fire is often the more important feature of a weapon.
  - dbcurtis 10y ago
    May all your enemies be on full auto. The AK-47 and AR-15/M-16 are products of the doctrine of area fire. The M1 Garrand is a product of the doctrine of aimed fire. WW II was aimed fire. Aimed fire sucked in the jungle wars with fewer open field battles. Hunting rifles are good for a sniper-based, aimed-fire guerilla action. A battle between farm boys and Marines will be asymetric.